The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum 1 Timothy 2 issue

William,
Galatians 3:28 encompasses salvation, liberty, equality and no condemnation which we have in Christ Jesus. If you find fault with my exegesis, then you may have never looked at the whole of Scripture for your understanding of any given verse. Far as indiviuals who support women talking in church and teaching men in Bible Studies and Sunday school classes, there are probably many in the course of history, unfortunately I can't name any within the Reform umbrella.Not that it matters, considering how men in general have treated women over history as inferior to themselves, especially within Christendom. Mind you, I am not advocating women as Pastor's, Elder's or Deacon's. What I am saying, is that it is ludicrous to say a man can not learn from a woman in the spiritual realm and that women are to remain silent in the Church services, especially considering most church services were held in homes occupied by the woman of the house in the time of Paul's writtings.
George

Indeed it must be my ignorance that makes me wrong. Yet you haven't quoted one early church writer, not one reformed theologian, and admit the context of the passage is NOT church polity. I understand.


God bless,

william

William
It is indeed interesting, that you would consider church polity and the history of how men have dealt with this issue more important then what the whole of Scripture seems to say. Especially in the light that no one theologian, Calvin included, ever got everything right.Also, where in the first century church, to you ever find the type of setting we now carry out our Church services in? Why don't you ask your wife or girl friend, if they think Scripture says they are to say nothing at all in church or ever teach a man. I have been in Reform Churches for over 20 years and have yet seen these doctrines adhered to, even in the most strict of the orthodox Presbyterian congregations I have been part of.
George

Indeed, this is an unfair caricature. William already asked you about Scripture which (1) you have used out of context, and (2) are misapplying. By asking you to look at the history, William was asking you to defend your interpretation of the Scripture—as you had already failed to do such from the Greek text he was wondering if you would do better from history.

Above you assail to interpret the text of Scripture with culture as your investigative and regulative hermeneutic. With this type hermeneutic you would have millions of interpretative translations. Even the homosexuals could find justification with this type of interpretative devaluation. After all it is the culture they live in? Paul is not here embracing a cultural hermenutic... Neither is Paul concerned about woman’s ability.....(of course, your wife is smarter than you are). The question is not whether woman are smart or have an ability to teach, but if they should teach a man? Paul here against your advice does not consult his girlfriend, but God’s Word for his interpretation.

Unlike your assumption concerning 1 Tim 2:11, Paul was concerned Scripturally that a woman should not enter upon an activity for which by her very creation she was not suited. Woman was not meant to serve the Lord in this manner. Please see Pilgrim's post for the correct interpretation of the passage.

Does this give us the right to totally redefine scripture? This is what you have done. Did the entirety of the church have this wrong until the last century?


And where does the Bible become different every generation? How about different for every culture? Do we interpret the Bible according to our cultural bias's?


Now there's some really sound methods, huh? Ask your girlfriend. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/Eeeeeek.gif" alt="" />


Your experience means nothing.


God bless,

william

William and Joe,
First of all, I do believe that women are to be under the authority of the man in the areas of teaching and leadership. Where we disagree, is on if a woman can ever teach a man and if a woman is to always remain silent in our churches. Both of you are quick to accuse me of misuse of Scripture, such as Gal. 3:27-28 and not willing to submit to theologians or Church polity in the history of the Church. Yet, what "pet" theologian have all of us quoted from, only to find out that we disagree with on some other issue (like Dr Grudem on 1 Timothy 2:11-12 and the Spiritual gifts)?In regards to church polity, what first century church, remotely looks like how we play church today? What if the Greek word "didaskien" in the present tense can mean "to teach continuously"? Would that change either of your minds in respect to 1 Tim.2:11-12? Finally, when I look back at the posts presented on this issue, I begin to wonder if a legalistic tone runs deep through this whole area. What ever happen to grace?
George

Then what do we have except our own private interpretations? I'll take an interpretation supported by a continuity of 1800 years of practice over an 1800's feminist re-interpretation any day. I am not sure I totally agree with any one person, but this doesn't require that the entirety of the Christian church missed this point for 1800 years, does it? What I am claiming is your interpretation is a reformulation based on the preferences of a modern society. Your misuse of Galatians 3:28 has also been shown and addressed.


In polity, a few. But this isn't simply a first century dilemma for you. It is an 18 century dilemma. Your claim requires that the church was in error on this matter for nearly the entirety of its existence. Since when was polity decided by the winds of feminism?


Maybe........got anything? Pilgrim showed why your translation was in error already. Oh, what if worms owned shotguns? I've asked for anything and all you've given is opinion and feelings. I await whatever you have that will be better than this. I also would need to interpret the verse in its proper context and so that it would remain in harmony with the entirety of Holy Writ. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" />


No. What does run deep here is the desire for truth. We don't wish do worship God according to a cultural truth thermometer, but by Gods word.

Joh 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.


Joh 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.


God bless,

william

Please, since you hold yourself forth as someone who knows (or is familiar with[/i]) the Greek language, exegete (completely) the Galatians’ passages, or any other passage, revealing how they support your position. Where’s the beef?



Teach is not only [i]present and active, but also an infinitive (didask + ein, meaning to teach). The word continuously is not in the Greek it is merely an additional word, “you added.” By the injection of this term you desire us to think that it is ok sometimes for a woman to teach and usurp authority over a man. The verse makes no sense using this interpretation, as we must remember that Paul gives us the meaning of what he is saying in the next few verses. Since, these verses are used in contrast with one another, you would then have to say, “it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being sometimes deceived, fell into transgression (vs 14), which is clearly false, as the woman was quite deceived…... Your interpretation simply does not work.

When the church gathers, women are to listen to godly men who teach. Scripture teaches they should learn quietly..… with entire submissiveness (NAS). Submissiveness (hupotage, used only in the passive in the NT), means “to line up under.” Paul even stresses his context further using the phrase with entire emphasizing complete subjection. What I find most interesting in the Greek construction here are the terms hesuchia (quietly), emerging near the beginning of vs. 11, and the very end of verse 12 (quiet). These two terms group the scriptural teaching on the role of women as to the scriptural principle of silence. Thus, the teaching of Scripture in the context of gathering for worship is that women are to be silent and content in the role of a learner.


Whatever happened to obedience to the Word of God you were saved unto? When one makes grace a substitute for obedience it makes me think one embraces antinomianism. Eph 2 states you were saved unto good works. Those good works are just obeying what “is written.”

Joe and William,
I know very little about Greek, but I do know enough about human nature, and that we are persuaded more by what we want to believe then what might be. As stated before, professors of the Greek are at differences amongst themselves on verses like 1Cor.14:34 and 1Tim. 2:11-12, as this next article represents in the area of the Greek words for "man and woman". I have never been considered a antinomian or feminist supporter before, especially over if a woman can talk in church or teach one you guys something, without violating your authority over them.
By the way Joe, I hope your able to keep your feet dry, take care and my prayer is with you.
George

>The New RSV translation informs the reader in its footnotes to 1 Timothy
> >2:11-12 that the Greek can be translated alternatively as "I permit no wife
> >to teach or have authority over her husband". For reasons of context in 1
> >Timothy 2 and the 1 Peter 3 parallel, this is far and away the preferred
> >translation.
>
>It is a possible reading of the verse, but the traditional understanding of
>a church setting is far more likely. Paul does not have the authority to
>forbid a wife to teach her husband. But that is what Paul would be
>forbidding in 1 Tim 2:12 according to the above view. There are many other
>contextual indicators opposed to the above translation.
>
> Yours,
> Harold Holmyard


May I respectfully suggest to Harold Holmyard that he is begging the
question, affirming as fact that which is to be established.

1. He states that the traditional understanding of the verse is more
likely. If it is more likely because it IS traditional, i.e. if we are
simply to accept what is traditional, then (apart from reading our
predecessors to ascertain what tradition says) we can all shut up shop on
New Testament scholarship. But if Harold's preferred understanding ("a
church setting") is to be accepted because it is in fact the one more
likely, then he needs to address the task of showing this to be so: and
then whether this view is traditional or no is secondary.

2. Harold asserts that a church setting [for the passage] is more likely.
As this list is a forum on Biblical Greek it is not appropriate here for me
to give a detailed answer to this. Any who would like to read such a
detailed answer to this viewpoint will find it on pages 33 to 57 of my book
"The Ministry of Women in the Church" (SPCK Australia, 1996, ISBN
1-876106-05-0, $US20). A brief answer is: the Greek here is ambiguous, as
GUNH can be understood as "woman" or "wife", and ANHR as "man" or
"husband"; and in situations of such ambiguity in the Greek one needs to
take very full and careful account of context. There is nothing within 1
Timothy 2:8-15E which indicates a church setting. The praying by men of
verse 8 is as appropriate for men in their role as head of a household as
within a church context: note especially the expression EN PANTI TOPWi.
Women get dressed at home, not in church (verses 9-10). The rationale which
Paul gives for verses 11-12 is Adam and Eve (verses 13-14) - they were a
married couple not a church. Women gave birth to their children in their
homes, not in the context of a church service (verse 15). If "a church
setting" is to be found in the context of verse 12 it is because it has
been first of all read into it. The passage does not contain it.

3. Harold asserts that Paul lacks the authority to forbid a wife to teach
her husband. Yet (presumably, on Harold's understanding of it being a
church setting) Paul has the authority to forbid ALL women from teaching
ALL men. He can do the greater forbidding, but not the lesser. This is a
bold and courageous assertion. I wonder how it could be supported.

4. Finally, Harold says that there are "many other contextual indicators
opposed to the above translation" i.e., of GUNH and ANHR here as wife and
husband. As these are not pointed out, I do not know what Harold has in
mind and in consequence I am unable to answer this assertion. However,
there are seven significant points of similarity with what Paul says here
(2:8-15E) about GUNH and ANHR and what Peter says about the people to whom
these same Greek words refer in 1 Peter 3:1-7. In the latter passage, as I
pointed out in my previous post, these words are translated as "wife" and
"husband". What are the "other contextual indicators" in 1 Timothy 2:8-15E
which mean that, to the contrary, the right translation in this passage is
"woman" and "man"? Or, Harold, would you say that that is also the correct
translation in 1 Peter 3?

5. The GUNH referred to in this passage is (in verse 11) to be in "full
submission" to the ANHR. The only person to whom a woman is ever required
to be in submission in NT teaching is to the husband with whom she is "one
flesh", and that is because he is the "head" of this one-flesh
relationship, and is to love his wife, and treat his wife as his own flesh,
a part of his own body (Ephesians 5:22-33E). The one always and only ever
goes with the other. The idea that a woman is to be in submission to males
other than her husband, who do not owe her the commitment outlined by Paul
in Ephesians 5, is a monstrous idea and is foisted upon the NT, not taught
by it.

I realize that opinions differ in relation to this passage. (Otherwise we
would hardly be spending time on it, trying to come to an understanding of
its meaning.) With full recognition of these other viewpoints, and aware
indeed of the possibility that I can be the one who is mistaken here, I
respectfully submit my interpretation of the Greek of verses 11 and 12. But
I would hold that it is not sufficient to assert that my understanding is
incorrect. To demolish my case it is necessary to address each of my
arguments and show how they are invalid or in error.

Then I will be persuaded to amend my views, and will publicly do so.

Regards,

Ward

http://www.eagles.bbs.net.au/~bwpowers
Rev Dr B. Ward Powers Phone (International): 61-2-9799-7501
10 Grosvenor Crescent Phone (Australia): (02) 9799-7501

William and Joe,
This is another article which puts 1 Timothy 2 in context and yet another example of one who seems to know the Greek and but still holds a different position then you two. Seeking truth, means taking the time and considering all the positions. Being on the proverbial "Ivory Tower", making judgments of a fellow Christian who happens to be Reform, but differs on the peripheral thoughts, is counter productive.
George

Edit: Rather than copy/pasting large articles here, please use a URL (address) that points to the article online. Thanks! - Pilgrim
Pilgrim I need to learn how to do that... I shortened the article:
The Christian Marital Relationship and the Gospel of Jesus Christ

Sophrosune gives us an important clue to the context of Paul's statements in I Timothy 2:11-12. The fact that Paul is indeed referring to the marriage relationship is revealed by the words "woman" and "man." When Paul stated, "Let the woman learn ..." he was actually commenting on the Christian role of the wife. "Woman" is translated from the Greek gune (wife), and "man" is translated from the Greek andros (husband). When used with anthropos (man or mankind), gune may mean women in general. But when used with andros, it can only mean "wife" and must be translated so. Paul is not discussing here the general relationship of women to men, but the specific relationship of wives to husbands.

The real question here is: what are the proper roles of the converted husband and the converted wife in relationship to preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ? Paul addresses this question in verses 11-15 of I Timothy 2. The context reveals Paul's answer: the natural order is not to be disturbed in the preaching of the gospel. This natural order, ordained by God, is the role of the husband as head of the wife. Thus Paul argues:

"For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety" (I Tim. 2:13-15).
The role of childbearing was biologically reserved for the wife from the very beginning. The role of fathering and leadership in the family was reserved for the husband from the very beginning. Paul argues that this is so for the sake of the children. Thus when husbands and wives are interacting at home, in an assembly, or anywhere else, the position of the husband as the natural head of the family should not be undermined! For, as Paul argues, this natural relationship is in accordance with God's ordained order in creation.

Does this mean that the wife must be mute in services, or in public in general, when her husband is present or when any man is present? Not at all! The Greek text does not support or warrant such a conclusion. In I Timothy 2:11 Paul does not argue that wives are not to learn, but only that they should "learn (manthano) in silence, with all subjection." Learn what? Be in subjection to whom? In absolute silence?

The word translated "learn" here is the Greek verb manthano and grammatically must answer to the Greek verb didasko, to teach. In the simple aorist tense, manthano means to learn anything. But in this context, manthano refers to the wife learning the facts of God's plan of salvation. This wonderful plan of salvation includes women in general and wives in particular! The phrase "Let the woman learn" in the Greek is in the present imperative. Thus Paul is commanding here that wives be continually and repeatedly taught the plan of salvation by their husbands!

What does Paul mean then, when he commands that this learning be done in "silence" and in "subjection?" The Greek word translated "silence" is hesuchia and refers to tranquillity of spirit or a state of being undisturbed. Thus Paul is not requiring Christian wives to remain absolutely silent but to speak with calmness and self-control.

"One must bear in mind here that during the era of time when Paul was writing, it was usually men who were the ones to receive an education. If this word meant 'complete silence,' women would never have the opportunity to ask questions or increase her [their] knowledge of the Scriptures. Simply speaking, the wife ought to be displaying a tranquil spirit in her attempt to learn" (Zodhiates, The Hebrew/Greek Key Study Bible, World Kein, p. 1497).
Paul is encouraging, indeed commanding, that wives speak up, ask questions, learn of God's plan of salvation, but that they do so in a manner that does not undermine the husband's position as head of the family.

"Subjection" must also be understood in this context. The Greek word is hupotage and simply means "to place in proper order." Hupotage refers to the natural order that God established between the husband and the wife. Paul simply shows here that in the wife's desire to learn, whether in the family or gathered in Christian fellowship, the proper order requires that she always respect her husband's position as her leader (cf. 1 Cor. 11:3). As there is complete equality of husband and wife in Christ (Gal. 3:28), Paul is not saying that the wife is inferior to her husband. This is not a matter of superiority and inferiority, as viewed by many today; it is a matter of respecting the God-ordained order in family relationships. Both husband and wife have equal claim and authority over each other (I Cor. 7:3-5). Nevertheless, God Himself has ordained that when a man and a woman voluntarily enter into a marriage relationship, the husband is to be the leader (Eph. 5.22-24), and this role is to be upheld, respected and nurtured for the sake of the children and for the very salvation of the wife (I Tim. 2:13-15).

Carl Franklin

George,

While I am sure you mean well, what we are speaking about here are far more than mere “peripheral thoughts.” First, I do not consider ANYTHING in God’s Word peripheral or non-essential. God’s holy words in Scripture are meant for several purposes, among them being: to allow us to know Him better, salvation, and to reveal to us how we ought to now live our lives. In addition, God has structured the family in a very particular way and He has seen fit to not leave it to mere chance how we ought to order things here. Thus, we see such passages as those in Timothy and elsewhere that we should examine and apply to our lives—and to those of others.

Second, God’s Word is not a mere smörgåsbord of interpretations—I’ll take the peppery interpretation today. Greek is good, but then you need to properly interpret it—just because a person knows English does not mean he understands what any given sentence means “in context.” Moreover, if you are going to study another’s materials you must at least have a solid foundation so you can discern good from evil. This means observing a proper hermeneutic. While no hermeneutic is perfect, a pure reformed one is much more accurate than the trash you are posting here: i.e. the only Carl Franklin I have heard of is in Worldwide Church of God. What do you know of their theology? While some of is may be accurate—much is not…. While Ward Powers of Tyndale College is better known then Franklin, he still has a different hermeneutic than found by most in the Reformed camp. In addition, his Greek is not as precise as Machen's or Baugh's.

Joe,
What you have written for the most part, I agree with. Yet, I do believe, there are Scriptures such as 1Tim.2:11-15 and 1Cor.14:34, which are difficult to fully understand. I remember reading a comment Luther made on 1Peter 3:18-22, where he states openly, that no one may know exactly this side of heaven what these verses fully mean. It would be foolish to get dogmatic over these type of verses, though the "Word Faith" people have done exactly that.With the former verses, I believe the church setting and problems that existed must be taken in account as well as, is it man and woman or husband and wife being considered in the Timothy passage. But most of all, I believe we as a Church need to extend grace and not get carried away in the area of silencing our women or believing a woman has nothing to offer her husband or a man in general in the area of our faith.
George

Scripture?


God bless,

william

Ministry:

Acts 18:18-26
1Cor. 11:4-5
Phil.4:3
Romans 16:1-3
Judges chp 4

Grace and Love:

Romans 14:19
1Cor. 6:12, 10:23
1Peter 3:7-9
1Cor. chp 13
Eph. 4:2-7

None, NOT ONE, of those passages said what you said. NONE said anything about a women teaching in corporate worship.


God bless,

william